Congress’ antitrust push has a hate speech problem

Sen. Klobuchar’s antitrust bill is supposed to promote competition. So why are advocates afraid it could also promote extremists?

Amy Klobuchar

The bill as written could make it a lot riskier for large tech companies to deplatform or demote companies that violate their rules.

Photo: Photo by Elizabeth Frantz-Pool/Getty Images

The antitrust bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday and is now headed to the Senate floor is, at its core, an attempt to prevent the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google from boosting their own products and services on the marketplaces and platforms they own.

But upon closer inspection, some experts say, the bill as written could make it a lot riskier for large tech companies to deplatform or demote companies that violate their rules.

The American Innovation and Choice Online Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley, prohibits self-preferencing by the largest tech companies. Unsurprisingly, it brought out the usual opposition from tech giants and their lobbyists this week. But it also inspired forceful critiques even from advocates who have been at the forefront of the techlash, including Free Press, which argued in a blog post Thursday that the parts of the bill could threaten enforcement against hate speech and other problematic behavior.

The trouble, they say, lies in part of the bill that would make it illegal for platforms to “discriminate” against “similarly situated business users” in the course of enforcing their terms of service. That, of course, could apply to a company like Google down-ranking another company in search results to promote Google’s own services. But, critics say, it could also lead to legal cases where tech giants get accused of anticompetitive behavior for deplatforming a business like Infowars.

The bill “opens the door to arguments that covered platforms are unlawfully discriminating against hate-and-disinformation purveyors by taking them down,” Free Press associate legal director Carmen Scurato wrote in a statement this week. “State AGs and future FTC officials charged with enforcing this bill could easily but falsely paint apps like Parler or businesses like Infowars as ‘similarly situated’ to other apps and sites that remain available on the covered platforms.”

Free Press wasn’t alone in making this case. TechFreedom, a significantly more industry-friendly group, raised a similar point in a letter to lawmakers this week. “If a majority of FTC Commissioners were bent on a partisan agenda — e.g., forcing mainstream platforms to carry Parler — it would be significantly easier for them to use the administrative litigation process to do so,” TechFreedom wrote, noting that the mere possibility of such litigation “could suffice to pressure Big Tech platforms to comply.”

To be clear, nothing in the bill prevents companies from enforcing their terms of service, per se, but critics argue the bill could lay the groundwork for cases that aim to prove the terms themselves are discriminatory.

A spokesperson for Klobuchar said that deplatforming a company for hate speech was unlikely to be a material harm to competition. If someone were to bring such a case with that argument, the spokesperson said, a platform could show it was acting to protect user safety.

This argument has won over groups like Accountable Tech, which often sit on the same side as Free Press when it comes to issues of tech accountability. “I have tremendous respect for Free Press and appreciate their concerns, but we wouldn't be supporting this bill if we felt it threatened platforms' ability to properly enforce their rules to safeguard people from harm,” said Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of Accountable Tech. Lehrich pointed to the fact that the provision only impacts discrimination against businesses, not individuals, and allows platforms to offer user safety as an affirmative defense. Lehrich said, however, that if there’s a way to further clarify the provision without gutting it, “I’m all for it.”

The topic of hate speech did come up, though sparingly, during the Senate debate Thursday, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla arguing that the bill would “be a gift to bad actors seeking to prevent platforms from blocking business users that peddle hate speech or … election disinformation.”

This issue is just one of several that will need to be ironed out before the bill goes to a final vote. But it may also be among the trickiest to come to an agreement on: If an antitrust crackdown on Big Tech is the glue holding Democrats and Republicans together, content moderation is a surefire wedge.

During Thursday’s hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz, who voted in favor of the bill, made clear he wanted the legislation to do more to stop tech companies from interfering with conservative speech, noting that the current bill “would make some positive improvement on the problem of censorship.”

“As I read this statute, it would provide protections to content providers, to businesses that are discriminated against because of the content of what they produce,” Cruz said. “I think that is a meaningful step forward. That language is important."

The last thing Democrats want is to embolden the extremists who have motivated so much of their resentment toward tech to begin with. Then again, scrapping that provision altogether could cost Democrats the precious few Republican votes they’ll need to actually pass the bill.


Judge Zia Faruqui is trying to teach you crypto, one ‘SNL’ reference at a time

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. Strangelove." That’s because he wants you — yes, you — to read them.

The ways Zia Faruqui (right) has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster.

Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

“Cryptocurrency and related software analytics tools are ‘The wave of the future, Dude. One hundred percent electronic.’”

That’s not a quote from "The Big Lebowski" — at least, not directly. It’s a quote from a Washington, D.C., district court memorandum opinion on the role cryptocurrency analytics tools can play in government investigations. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

Keep ReadingShow less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Financial Technology Association (FTA) represents industry leaders shaping the future of finance. We champion the power of technology-centered financial services and advocate for the modernization of financial regulation to support inclusion and responsible innovation.

AWS CEO: The cloud isn’t just about technology

As AWS preps for its annual re:Invent conference, Adam Selipsky talks product strategy, support for hybrid environments, and the value of the cloud in uncertain economic times.

Photo: Noah Berger/Getty Images for Amazon Web Services

AWS is gearing up for re:Invent, its annual cloud computing conference where announcements this year are expected to focus on its end-to-end data strategy and delivering new industry-specific services.

It will be the second re:Invent with CEO Adam Selipsky as leader of the industry’s largest cloud provider after his return last year to AWS from data visualization company Tableau Software.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Image: Protocol

We launched Protocol in February 2020 to cover the evolving power center of tech. It is with deep sadness that just under three years later, we are winding down the publication.

As of today, we will not publish any more stories. All of our newsletters, apart from our flagship, Source Code, will no longer be sent. Source Code will be published and sent for the next few weeks, but it will also close down in December.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bennett Richardson

Bennett Richardson ( @bennettrich) is the president of Protocol. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, Bennett was executive director of global strategic partnerships at POLITICO, where he led strategic growth efforts including POLITICO's European expansion in Brussels and POLITICO's creative agency POLITICO Focus during his six years with the company. Prior to POLITICO, Bennett was co-founder and CMO of Hinge, the mobile dating company recently acquired by Match Group. Bennett began his career in digital and social brand marketing working with major brands across tech, energy, and health care at leading marketing and communications agencies including Edelman and GMMB. Bennett is originally from Portland, Maine, and received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University.


Why large enterprises struggle to find suitable platforms for MLops

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, and as larger enterprises go from deploying hundreds of models to thousands and even millions of models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

Photo: artpartner-images via Getty Images

On any given day, Lily AI runs hundreds of machine learning models using computer vision and natural language processing that are customized for its retail and ecommerce clients to make website product recommendations, forecast demand, and plan merchandising. But this spring when the company was in the market for a machine learning operations platform to manage its expanding model roster, it wasn’t easy to find a suitable off-the-shelf system that could handle such a large number of models in deployment while also meeting other criteria.

Some MLops platforms are not well-suited for maintaining even more than 10 machine learning models when it comes to keeping track of data, navigating their user interfaces, or reporting capabilities, Matthew Nokleby, machine learning manager for Lily AI’s product intelligence team, told Protocol earlier this year. “The duct tape starts to show,” he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories